Hi!! I am a fifth year architecture student and I am doing mu Dissertation on Iconic Architecture versus Architecture as icons.Its basically a critical analysis of buildings which became icon over the period of time and buildings which are built as icons.For that i need to take two iconic buildings which have a common base and analyse the factors that made them iconic. and finally conclude on the importance of context based designs which made buildings iconic.I was thinking of Taking Burj al arab and burj khalifa. but i need much better examples. It will be better if both the buildings are in the same context/place; one built as iconic and other which became icon due to its design quality on its own.i need help!
Stay out of Dubai, the most cliched thesis topics look at Dubai, if you do anything in Dubai your jury and critics will just roll their eyes. Focusing on major cities, some thoughts, maybe not good but Paris, the Eiffel vs the new development in La Defense. New York you could do the met and the guggenheim, the empire state building vs the statue of liberty. In London the Gerkin and the Tower Bridge.
I think this is a worthwhile idea. I don't know that you could really address the topic described without mentioning or using Dubai in some fashion. I think the idea of contrasting the building that becomes icon vs, the building built AS icon is interesting. It's simple but with a really fine opportunity for nuance. You can say plenty about it and fine tune it with real precision.
I would add a third category: the building built AS icon, that then becomes icon. I think the Eiffel tower, and then maybe even the tower bridge would fall into this category. There are buildings that were intended to splash, that do indeed splash, and then keep on splashing.
Hell in New York, you could do the old WTC vs the new WTC. In terms of real vs ersatz icon that's a whole (devastatingly sad) discussion right there. But it would probably work better if it was a broader survey, and focused on maybe a few examples based in Typology and Time Period. Funerary: Go Pyramid - Taj - something else. Skyscraper, maybe Eiffel, Chrysler, & Burj-of-the-week. ID and use other Types (Coliseum, church, etc.)
I would say focus on specific examples, but frame them in a broad-reaching widely encompassing structure and argument. There was an issue of HUNCH I think (14? perhaps? It's got a blue cover) that looked at the iconic in certain ways that you may find useful. Track that down if you can. It may help you get a sense of how this topic has-been /can-be addressed. Good luck.
Sydney opera house comes to mind what about places that become iconic like Central Park, markets, ports, industrial buildings like battersea power station.
I always thought it was interesting that Sydney Opera House could become such a treasured, iconic, and influential piece of architecture when the structural design was botched so horribly. I always have to remind myself that architecture does not have to be flawless to be loved by the public.
Jun 18, 14 9:39 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Iconic Architecture versus architecture as icons
Hi!! I am a fifth year architecture student and I am doing mu Dissertation on Iconic Architecture versus Architecture as icons.Its basically a critical analysis of buildings which became icon over the period of time and buildings which are built as icons.For that i need to take two iconic buildings which have a common base and analyse the factors that made them iconic. and finally conclude on the importance of context based designs which made buildings iconic.I was thinking of Taking Burj al arab and burj khalifa. but i need much better examples. It will be better if both the buildings are in the same context/place; one built as iconic and other which became icon due to its design quality on its own. i need help!
Burj Anything *puke*
Try the Taj Mahal
Stay out of Dubai, the most cliched thesis topics look at Dubai, if you do anything in Dubai your jury and critics will just roll their eyes. Focusing on major cities, some thoughts, maybe not good but Paris, the Eiffel vs the new development in La Defense. New York you could do the met and the guggenheim, the empire state building vs the statue of liberty. In London the Gerkin and the Tower Bridge.
I think this is a worthwhile idea. I don't know that you could really address the topic described without mentioning or using Dubai in some fashion. I think the idea of contrasting the building that becomes icon vs, the building built AS icon is interesting. It's simple but with a really fine opportunity for nuance. You can say plenty about it and fine tune it with real precision.
I would add a third category: the building built AS icon, that then becomes icon. I think the Eiffel tower, and then maybe even the tower bridge would fall into this category. There are buildings that were intended to splash, that do indeed splash, and then keep on splashing.
Hell in New York, you could do the old WTC vs the new WTC. In terms of real vs ersatz icon that's a whole (devastatingly sad) discussion right there. But it would probably work better if it was a broader survey, and focused on maybe a few examples based in Typology and Time Period. Funerary: Go Pyramid - Taj - something else. Skyscraper, maybe Eiffel, Chrysler, & Burj-of-the-week. ID and use other Types (Coliseum, church, etc.)
I would say focus on specific examples, but frame them in a broad-reaching widely encompassing structure and argument. There was an issue of HUNCH I think (14? perhaps? It's got a blue cover) that looked at the iconic in certain ways that you may find useful. Track that down if you can. It may help you get a sense of how this topic has-been /can-be addressed. Good luck.
Read "the architecture of the city" by Rossi.
Sydney opera house comes to mind what about places that become iconic like Central Park, markets, ports, industrial buildings like battersea power station.
A much more interesting topic would be ironic architecture vs. architecture as irony.
I second the idea of WTC towers. or maybe MoMA vs Folk Art Musuem? a la, #FolkMoMA...
also i used to love eikongraphia - might be instructive or at least food for thought.
I always thought it was interesting that Sydney Opera House could become such a treasured, iconic, and influential piece of architecture when the structural design was botched so horribly. I always have to remind myself that architecture does not have to be flawless to be loved by the public.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.